Two Plus Two Forums
Sports and Games
Chess and Other Board Games
Backgammon Forum hosted by Bill Robertie.
Why isn't no-double equity proportional to win probability?
10-12-2021
, 09:28 AM
In other words, why is the red curve in the image below not a straight line between the points (0%, -1) and (100%, +1)?
I would have thought our no-double equity would be E = p - (1-p) or (equivalently) E = 2p - 1. This red curve starts and ends at the same points, but is a bit steeper in the middle and less steep near the ends. Any insight on why this happens? Am I missing something obvious?
(The image is from this article but I couldn't find an answer there).
EDIT: It also seems unlikely that it's related to gammons, since if gammons were included (e.g., 15% of our wins are gammons) I would expect our ND equity to be greater than 1 when we reach 100% win probability.
I would have thought our no-double equity would be E = p - (1-p) or (equivalently) E = 2p - 1. This red curve starts and ends at the same points, but is a bit steeper in the middle and less steep near the ends. Any insight on why this happens? Am I missing something obvious?
(The image is from this article but I couldn't find an answer there).
EDIT: It also seems unlikely that it's related to gammons, since if gammons were included (e.g., 15% of our wins are gammons) I would expect our ND equity to be greater than 1 when we reach 100% win probability.
Last edited by sdfsgf; 10-12-2021 at 09:41 AM.
